I've never really played much attention because it seemed like something that would be very difficult and costly to do. I did play with one app (Junaio a while back) that allowed you to add pictures and some animated stuff , but it was Aurasma that caught my interest.

Okay, so it wasn't very professional (I don't do videos much), but the effect is pretty cool. I recorded a video of myself doing a short review of a book. Then used the app to add the video to a image of the book cover. So when the user views the book cover with the app, the video appears superimposed over the book cover creating a "talking head" effect.

Several mistakes in the video. For example, I said it works only for iPhone 4 and iPad 2 "due to front facing camera". That's nonsense. Though the description says iPhone 4 and iPad 2 only, it works fine on my iPhone 3GS.

This also works for pages in books or magazines.

At the risk of being accused of trying to self promote, here I attached a video of myself to a page in the Library Journal where my bio for Movers&Shakers 2011 is listed. I aligned it as much as possible so the talking head video appears in just about the right place for my bio.

Again not very professionally done, but you get the idea.

It was pretty trivial to do all this, I probably spent more like on the video of the book review. Steps are as follows.

1. Capture the image where the AR is going to appear. It this case it's the book cover. You can expand and shrink the area captured.

2. Next, you select where to grab the image or video from. In my case, I took it from my iPhone/iPad but you can use blinkx video search engine to search for videos from Youtube etc. I could have used professionally made videos from my libraries' Youtube account for example.

3. Once it's loaded, you can then align, rotate etc scale up or down the video and position it. Initially the video is too big, so i scale it down etc..

4. This is what I settled for in the end, with my video appears just below the author and title.

5. That's pretty much it.

Here's a professional version by Aurasma themselves.

Not everyone can create a powerful Augmented Reality app that can be used to do shelf checking but apps like Aurasma (others include Junaio - I tried earlier version) makes it easy for librarians with no technical skill get involved.

Obviously the true potential of Augmented reality goes beyond just adding static videos or images (how about dynamic display of "likes", user comments on a book?), but to some extent what I showed can eventually take the place of some of the use cases of QRcodes (at least those that link to videos or images).

Currently Aurasma has a number of drawbacks, it works only on iPhone 4 (and also 3GS) and Ipad 2, but I suppose there's no reason why it cannot get an Android app eventually.

More seriously I believe any Augmented reality case - they call it a "anywhere", you create on device only works on that device, which makes its practically useless except for very specific use cases (though you can share with friends it seems I haven't tried).

There are "super anywheres" which don't have this restriction, but I'm not sure how much it costs to create one (maybe paid app?) but currently only the Aurasma team can create the, and they have done so for things like NBC logo, Kelloggs logo etc. Looks like Aurasma is seeing a marketing opportunity here.

It's really exciting, and I'm starting to see that the future portrayed in the movie Minority Report and in particularVinge's Rainbow end might actually be coming. Imagine a next-generation wikipedia but one that uses the cognitive surplus of millions of people on the internet to populate the augmented reality world. I suppose the same issues of authority, trust will emerge again, who should be allowed to edit an Augmented reality wikipedia? If you think editing an online encylopedia is explosive, this makes that look like child's play.

Once I got Aurasma to work, my brain was bursting with ideas, I'm sure you have them too so I won't elaborate. The key point here is not whether Aurasma in particular is the right tool to use (currently it is not), but rather it represents a class of products or services that I will be keeping an eye out from now.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

As we struggle with our day to day struggles at work, it is easy to get caught up in our own individual library projects (social media! Mobile!) and lose sight of the big picture and forget that in a very real sense the long term future of libraries and librarians is in doubt (though this might not be a new state of affairs!)

At my level it might seem grandiose to think that anything I could do or say could affect anything as large and grand as the future of libraries, still I have occasionally come across articles, talks that have stirred me from my slumbers and made me think.

Are libraries doomed? Do we need to radically change? Are we (as I secretly suspect) potentially the last generation of librarians ever?

I have no clue. Still, I would like to share with you some of the articles written about the future of libraries that I have come across in the last 2 years that have struck a cord with me the most and made me think.

Eli Neiburger (named Library Journal Mover & Shaker 2011) gave a very famous talk available on YouTube, now known as the "Libraries are screwed" talk. It's well worth watching so I won't summarise it much beyond to say that he gives a very thoughtful presentation on the different fates of outdated/outmoded technologies such as the candle, vinyl etc and wonders about the possible future of the printed book ("codex"). Eli offers a solution, he has little faith that electronic books market will welcome libraries and he advocates that libraries serve as a platform/host for collecting the communities' new experiences/content.

Librarians are very divided on what the future of libraries (let's assume Public Libraries only for now) should be.

For one thing change means giving up the status quo.

As such there seems to be a big divide between librarians who want (or are accused of wanting?) to give up "Books as a library brand" and those who think it's suicidal to do so (for good reasons as library users generally see Libraries as books).

Even those who believe libraries needs to focus less on books as a brand are divided. Effing librarian writes in a very poetic and literary style about the different groups.

"Is it me, or has the library war already started? Because I keep reading about how the old library is dead and the new library needs building. That print has been mortally wounded and now those inbred and bastard children fight to be the next ruler. We have our own Game of Thrones (this week on HBO, which I have neither read nor seen, so whatever connection I make, is purely accidental) in the fantasy library world of Bibliotania (yeah, you come up with a better name):

We have the Knowledge Facilitators, once loyal to the throne but now impatient for political change so long as the office remains in their control.

We have the Transliterates, plotting with foreign armies or mercenaries, anyone who can bring swift wealth and power.

We have the Digital Natives, spoiled, selfish, corrupt, unable to see beyond their immediate desires, but who command a great army." The Library War

Effing librarian is no doubt a bit tongue in cheek about The Library War and he doesn't spell out what exactly the opposing schools (groups?) are, so let me speculate.

"Technology is the answer!" "Transliteracy!" "Knowledge Facilitation through communication with local communities is the solution! (That one's not so catchy.)" The Library War

I assume Transliterates school would include librarians like Librarian by Day Bobbi Newman and many school librarians like Buffy Hamilton (both named Library Journal Mover & Shaker 2011) who are active in promoting transliteracy. They see a place for librarians as educators. But that school is not without critics.

Not sure who digital natives are but "Technology is the answer" gives you a clue. I would guess it refers to the Library 2.0 people (though this term might have fallen out of repute). Micheal Stephens, David Lee King etc would be the ones normally pointed out to be leaders of this group (of whom I am a card carrying member??) , they lead a group of "social media/emerging tech" librarians who promote use of social media/mobile technologies to connect with users, support the idea of virtual library branches etc. Would the rallying cry of this group be

" If the online world is not for you, then neither may be a career in librarianship." -- Micheal Stephens

Sounds reasonable? Not everyone agrees as the devil is in the details. At it's worse opponents accuse this group of losing the human touch and being lost in techno-lust.

It's no accident that discussions about Library 2.0 sometimes leads to a struggle with some accusing Library 2.0 proponents to be against "books as a library" brand. This Cites & Insights issue is worth a read despite its length and while it is supposedly a review about the “Library 2.0” phenomena but does capture librarians disagreements about the future of libraries.

"Knowledge Facilitation through communication with local communities is the solution" is hardest to decodebut I believe it is actually referring to Professor Lankes' Atlas of new librarianship (among other things). It probably refers to those who believe the job of the library is not just as a warehouse of books but about interacting with community. It generally places a high premium on empowering librarians who are the reasons and value for libraries existing, typically thrown in with some vague vision of transforming spaces in the library for collaboration.

I would put Eli Neiburger who wants to help host community contenthere too.

The funny thing of course is all 3 schools are not mutually exclusive and on its own is reasonable what people disagree on is the amount of focus.

Bobbi Newman is well known for promoting Transliteracy, but you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would say she isn't adapt in the use of technology, social media.

Similarly, isn't social media's about being closer to the community?

Of course, shrinking budgets means you can't do all 3 at a time, but I would guess the main struggle hinges on the future of printed books. Do libraries want to hang on to this? It's not like the ebook world is very hospitable to libraries now.

Seth Godin has written about libraries twice (first time here), what he writes isn't particularly insightful or different compared to what librarians have being thinking (I put him in the Knowledge Facilitators school) but because it's Seth Godin his posts are lightning rods that draw blogged responses from librarians (not being able to comment on the blog helps too!).

Some quotes from him

"We need librarians more than we ever did. What we don't need are mere clerks who guard dead paper."

"The library is no longer a warehouse for dead books. Just in time for the information economy, the library ought to be the local nerve center for information"

"The next library is a place, still. A place where people come together to do co-working and coordinate and invent projects worth working on together."

I haven't digested all the posts yet, but I suspect the line "Librarians that are arguing and lobbying for clever ebook lending solutions are completely missing the point." is what is driving dissent.

It's quite interesting, since it paints even normally progressive librarians that want to shift to supporting ebooks as being in the same camp as those who believe libraries are rushing too quickly to abandon print books and embrace ebooks as a brand.

Seth I think does put a finger on a fundamental issue. Are librarians advocating a move to ebooks away from print fundamentally no different then defenders of print books?

If your vision of the future of libraries, involves ebooks rather then print books, you might believe in moving to a library without buildings (so people can download books from home),but you still believe the value of libraries lies in giving away information for free.

In other words what is the value of libraries? Is it in the information libraries provide for free or in the librarians who can guide, facilitate knowledge sharing and creation?

Can't it be both? Seth thinks it is the later which has a future not the former because information will eventually be free or effectively free. Is he right?

Both have a similar thesis, claiming that the rise of open access, easier interfaces to access information , with full text searching proving generally as good as indexed terms/controlled vocabulary (think Unified Indexes/Web Scale Discovery engines) means that librarians are generally don't as useful or needed anymore.

"As databases became more intuitive and simpler to use, library instruction in the use of archaic tools was no longer needed. Almost all remaining questions could be answered by faculty (see No. 3) or information-technology staff (see No. 4). It was largely the work of academic librarians that led to most of these advances in database technology." Academic Library Autopsy Report, 2050

Collection Development? With the rise of Patron Driven Acquisition, Big deals etc, do we really need that many specialised librarians? Why not centralise them with the purchasing department of the university.

"In terms of academic journals, we have a polarized position, where there is much activity on the front of Open Access to the journal literature. More and more of these publications are available for free. At the same time, more and more of the not-free literature is being collected under the umbrella of very large, very expensive packages from commercial publishers. Librarians tend to praise this first trend and decry the second, but in reality, both trends are in the researcher’s favor and both trends point to the disappearance of libraries and librarians. In 25 years, universities like my own will simply assign someone in the business office to ensure that a few extremely large bills are paid each year, ensuring access to the entirety of the for-pay journal literature." Libraries are Dying (And That’s A Good Thing)

How about value of "library as a space?"

"Librarians are often reduced to creating new reasons for their existence, reasons that have virtually nothing to do with the library qua library. When librarians speak of “library as place,” know that they have reached the tipping point, and are almost ready to concede that the library has little use anymore besides a place for the homeless to sleep and college students to check their Facebook accounts (or, quite likely, vice-versa)." Libraries are Dying (And That’s A Good Thing)

On the public library side, while other social benefits of public libraries might be useful, but one would be better off spending tax dollars on social services, community centres, education etc. Would a library that focused on all that but lost most of its traditional functions be still a library?

But that's very long term (I mean does anyone really think 100% Open access can be accomplished ) and an anonymous letter (at least the first is) which seems to be mostly satire can hardly be taken seriously.

But in the real-world, short term we sees changes are brewing. First there is what has being dubbed McMasterGate which caused a stirr in the academic library world.

In case you missed it, Jeffrey Trzeciak, Chief Librarian at McMaster University gave a talk at Penn State where he stated that he was unlikely to hire more traditional librarians but was likely to hire Phds and IT people. Will this become the trend? It's right towards the end, but you can see that he has achieved much for McMaster University Library in pulling in resources, and making the library the heart of the university, so it's hard to dismiss his views.

Compare Jeffrey Trzeciak with Eli Neiburger talk's where he declared that Reference is dead .

"We need big servers and the geeks to take care of them," Neiburger said. 'What are we going to cut to be able to hire a geek? We are going to cut reference staff. Reference is dead,' he said.

Despite the fact that a trained librarian can bring value to a reference interaction, the patron today, acclimated to Google searches, does not feel that way, and librarians cannot change their mind, Neiburger said.

'Travel agents were outmoded because people felt they had better access to the information than they could get from the travel agents. We're in a similar sort of spot,' he said. "

Eli and Jeffrey have both IT backgrounds and both have being named Library Journal Mover and Shakers in 2011 and 2004 respectively. One works at a public library another at an academic library. Both see value in IT staff (and phds for Jeffrey) rather than traditional librarians and both have accomplished amazing things in their career. As someone that identifies more with the traditional reference side of things, this feels me with dread. Are they right?

Conclusion
So these are the articles that make made me sit up and think about the future of libraries. What are yours? While not all of us are or will be Library Directors or University Librarians, every project we push for, support or not in the long run shapes what users think of our libraries, or sets into place what is possible in the future due to inertia so collectively the future of the libraries is in our hands.